talkmagic.co.uk

I have to say something about the trend to do flourishes.. I don't really know if it's a trend per say, as I'm not very familiar with the magic scene, but I mean the kind of sleights I see a lot of modern magicians use. Like Bill Malone who does fancy cuts and shuffles, false or not, who are obvious statements that "I can do magic me"!

Because after seeing a teasers of some great tricks with an obvious skilled practiciant, I think this: Why show the people you're skilled with cards by doing some flourish or fancy cut/shuffle, and the go on to do a trick mostly based on your sleight of hand? Like the trick Sam the Bellhop...

Isn't it obvious that the audience thinks these cuts and shuffles are all false? Some of them has to be thinking: "Well, he's doing something weird, but I can't see what it is". Wouldn't the ideal be to make your tricks look "natural" in the sense of card handling in the eyes of a layman?

Cause we have to admit, that as magicians, we often do things with a deck of cards that a layman would never do. Like the riffle force for instance. If a layman would have someone pick a card, it would be very unnatural for him to riffle down the pack and stop when a spectator says so. He would most likely spread out the cards and tell them to pick a card. That's why the classic force is by far my favourite sleight. Because in the eyes of the spectators, it's a really natural move!

I'm not sure where I'm going with this post, and if this is a really old discussion somewhere on the forum (didn't find anything obvious about this subject in the search function), just ignore this post. But I'm wondering if anyone else has any thoughts on the subject about using obvious fancy/false cuts/shuffles/flourishes?

Jon

I know where you are going with this, but i think it depends on your audience. Lots of fancy cuts and flourishes dont seem to work well in the pub environment (for me).

That said, I was performing at a rotary Christmas do the other night (everyone between 55-80) and after doing the "bellhop" i was listening to people talking and they were commenting on "how did he know where to cut the pack", " he must be realy skilled to remember where all the cards are".

I guess what im trying to say is fancy card work is fine if it adds to the effect, but try to stay clear if it doesnt improve the effect in anyway.

Yes there are many different circumstances in which one would like to appear skilled with the cards, and many where it would be a detriment.

If I am doing a gambling/card table routine, I certainly would use a few flourishes. You see in this case I want it to look like I am a card sharp, and laypeople react very well to even the most simple of flourishes.
Of course this is quite contradictory to the way in which a real card sharp would act on the gaming table; in this case he would wish to blend in with the other players and not give the slightest hint as to his skill.

I think this closely compares to performing card 'magic'. I do not want to give the spectators any reason to suspect I am skilled with the cards and therefore I avoid doing anything flashy or unusual. But you can get away with unnatural moves, you just need to develop that other very important skill which a magician must have - presentation. You must be able manage both the audience and the circumstances, but without them ever suspecting that you are in complete control, just like a real card sharp. If you master this (and I am barely an apprentice!) then you will be able to get away with just about anything you like. You could palm an elephant.
I'll try and explain what I mean.

Right then, Gammelsmurfen. As you say, something as simple as a 'get ready' or an undercut can look very unusual to a layperson and can attract attention, but these moves should not be discounted.

You mention the riffle force and you're right - it is a bit unusual. I mean, give the deck of cards to a spectator and ask them to perform a 'pick any card' trick and watch the way they do it. Normally the cards will be passed hand to hand in a very rough fan. This is the most natural way to do it and is the reason why the classic force is so effective.
But this does not mean you cannot use the riffle force, or any of the other several hundred forces out there! I use the riffle force loads, and, in fact, several other moves which you would never see a layperson do. And how do I get away with these? I just employ a little skill in presentation.

You see, us cardies have to use subtle tactics to avoid arousing suspicion when we use these moves. For example, I use the riffle force when I have a pen in my other hand, which gives me enough excuse to start an unusual one-handed move.

My 'get ready' for the D/L also varies depending on the circumstances. This is naturally a suspicious action and troubles a lot of beginners. In my ACR, I combine the 'get ready' with the 'magic move' that needs to be performed to make the card jump to the top - you know, riffle the pack, snap your fingers etc etc.
In this case I simply hold back the number of cards that I need when I riffle, and Hey Presto, a suspicious move is completely covered. Easy!
If you need to, you can give yourself an excuse to perform the more suspicous actions. This can always be done -- just use your imagination and your personality.

Ok... My point is that card management is only part of the deal here, the rest is knowing your audience and manipulating the circumstances so that you are in control.
Both of these skills should be practiced, well studied and performed with such aplomb that your skill passes by as gracefully and silently as a boat in the nighttime.

Things like riffle forces, hiund forces and controls and the like can look very suspisious but sometimes they are the best way to accomplish something. One easy way to make them look much more natural is to incorportate different shuffles into your routine. If you use hindu shuffles when it's obvious that you're not doing anything naughty then the specs will be much more used to seeing them and wont pick up when you do do somthing. If the only time you use a riffle to get them to select a card is when you're forcing and anyother time you spread a fan then yes it will look dodgey. But have them select a card in a different way every time and things look alot more innocent.

I think it all depends on your character as a magician.
If you are trying to portray yourself as a flamboyant card magician then fancy cuts and shuffles will help that no end. If however you have a different personna such as a card sharp gambler then your card handling should represent that too.
Finally I think it is important to try and think like your audience as sometimes something that may seem obviously suspicious to you will fly by a layman and visa versa.
The amount of times I have held a deck and a movement I've made ( non involuntary one that has nothing to do with the trick) has aroused suspicion in a spectator is a good example of this.

I have been reading (for the second time through) Strong magic in with Ortiz askes the reader to examine every effect, piece of patter and every move in your reportoire and ask the question "Does it represent or match your character as a magician?". If it doesn't then change it.
To be honest I think he's on to something there

Gammelsmurfen,
The argument you put forward is a long-standing one; it has been debated over the years by almost every top card man.

The theory is that you SHOULD demonstrate fourishes, etc. because your audience expects that you can handle cards well.

The other side of the theory is that you SHOULD NOT demonstrate flourishes, etc. because you should not show that you are any more able to manipulate cards that anyone in your audience.

Those two, opposing views do not give you an answer, of course, but that's because there IS no answer to this debate.

Bottom line: Do what suits your style.

As has been said above, it's all about the character you present. If you want to look sleek and suave and in control, by all means do some flourishes, because they impress people, and you are trying to impress them. However, if you present an affable bumbling performer, suddenly doing huge XCM cuts and fans is going to look a little incongruous.

I think it's worth mentioning that, on the subject of suspicious looking moves, big things are less suspicious than small ones. Big fans and multipacket cuts look big and impressive, so the audience takes them as something designed to impress. The mistrustful onlooker (knowing nothing about the mechanics of magic) is always looking for small sneaky moves that you don't want them to see.

At the end of the day, if you're performing magic for someone in any vaguely serious way, they're not going to believe you've never picked up a deck of cards before. With most prop based effects the audience know it's a trick. If it's done well, they will have no concept of how it works, and will be entertained enough not to care, but very few people you perform for (unless you do mentalism and such) really believe you can do magic.

Thanks everyone. Great replies and input! (Just edited "answers" into "replies" as i realized it doesn't have the same meaning as in norwegian )

I think my style is leaning towards a more normal card handling, as in it's just natural I can fan the deck beautifully as I do handle cards quite often, but I don't don't do XCM. That's probably the reason why I see those moves as unnecessary. And as Marvo says, having a good reason to do a get-ready or a riffle force for instance is a good way to get away with the weird things we as magicians has to do. I think Shoot Ogawa and Tommy Wonder are great examples of what I aim for. But I'll probably change my mind on this if I develop a routine with some card shark stuff

I think the what I tried with the original post was a question if this XCM that some magicians use, was some trend now? And because it isn't MY style, I don't like it that much (although it's fun to watch for me). And why it has become so accepted?

And as Peter says, it's an old topic that never can be agreed upon. Think I actually remember it's mentioned in The Royal Road To Card Magic book.

Hmm.. I think I'll have to take a close look at my routine to see if it's all suited to my "normal" style. hehe

BTW anyone else who does the Now you see it - effect in RRTCM (at least that's what I think it is called)? The one where you have a spectator pick a card, then he shuffles, you look for card and get 4 tries, show the 4 cards and none of them are their card. Then they point to one of the 4 cards, and alas! it's their card. Learnt it 5 years ago, and it still is the trick I get the best response to, even after learning tons of more sleights and tricks.

The only time I ever use fancy cuts is to get a bit of a laugh. Sometimes in an ACR when everything has been really clean I'll do a DL showing their card, put the top card in the middle and tell them to watch closely as I don't do any funny moves. Then I do some XCM.

Well, I say do some XCM, I don't know any XCM, it's just one I put together after watching some on the Trilogy. Keeps the whole deck in order which is handy

As has been said, it depends on your style.

Generally, I perform 'magic' to the ladies more than to guys. I find guys generally react better to flourishes.

Minimal moves when I say I'm doing card magic. I usually use the spring in a sandwich effect though.

If I'm performing a gambling demonstration (poker player's picnic), then the flourishes come out. Of course, my flourishes are limited to a rotation cut, charlier, double-handed charlier, and a basic false cut (forgot the name).

Sometimes I ask the spectators, do you want something a bit more showy? If they say why not, then I do a hot shot cut reveal etc. It wows them, and the appeal of magic is still there, so it's all good.

Words I hate:

Natural: It is different from personality to personality
Clean: As in you end clean. All effects end clean as clean should be the audience perspective, not the magician. Even if you end 'clean' but the audience thinks you are 'dirty' then you are no longer clean.
Dirty: See above
Misdirection. This seems to be misnamed, it should be Directions. I am directing my spectators not misdirecting them. Directing is a positive statement.
Throw away effect: Often used as an effect thown in to kill time. I understand in certain instances you need to perform longer but should you be doing this with a 'throw away'? If I have an effect that is a throw away then that is what I do. Usually into my bottom drawer never to be seen again.

And there are probably a slew of others that I can't think of at the moment. Perhaps this should have been a new thread but I posted it here because of the word 'natural' being haphazardly thrown about.

I have just started to try XCM in an attempt to make the flourishes in my routines, well more flourishy.
so far I have learnt 103 things.
1. How to ruin a deck in under 5 mins
2. How best to get finger cramp

And 101 ways to drop a deck!

Think I may get it half way respectible in about a year!

Steve, just persevere, you'll be surprised at how quickly you can learn things. My friend thinks I'm a gone case at flourishing as he has to show me how to do a certain flourish multiple times, but I still do pick things up from time to time, it just takes longer.

Don't be too worried, and just learn one flourish at a time.

Another tip, practise while standing next to your bed or table, so if you drop the cards you won't have to bend too far down to pick them up!

phoenixv wrote:Another tip, practise while standing next to your bed or table, so if you drop the cards you won't have to bend too far down to pick them up!

That is an excellent tip, and for 99% of the people I recommend it. However if you are like me that doesn't work. I get very fustrated bending down and picking up the bloody cards every two minutes. So I learn it faster because I don't want to bend down. If I have a saftey net and don't have to bend as far it is less incentive for me to learn it that much faster.

Yeah I know, my elevator does not go all the way to the top.

There's a short article by Simon Lovell (Control Or No Control) that's relevant to this thread.

It promotes the ultra-casual approach, which reinforces what people have been saying: you have to choose the presentation that fits your personality and image. (BTW, I wonder how many people here have used an ultra-casual approach similar to the one Lovell describes.)